If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Although it’s widely believed that “Obamacare” is here to stay, one lawsuit is threatening to undo President Obama’s landmark health care bill.

“A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House,” the Washington Times notes.

You may recall in June 2012 when the Supreme Court ruled on “Obamacare” that Chief Justice John Roberts defined the bill as a tax, not a mandate. This, according to the Times, is where PFL attorneys saw their opening.

“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said recently. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”

The Times explains the details:

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and “has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department’s motion “any day now,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.

The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn’t the only lawsuit against Obamacare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as “gut and amend” and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

If the corporations had their way, they would be able to consolidate and monopolize all the goods and services you need. In the process, they purchase the votes of elected officials. How is that so vastly different from socialism? It's like cable in many places: one provider so you pay what we say or you do without. It's like water most places: pay what we say, and if you choose to do without then we will condemn your building.

In the words of Mel Profitt: "Those people who care whose screwing them, they know that someone will."

Make no mistake: this health care bill will eventually move us towards a single-payer system. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted as much. And President Obama favors such a system.

Yet here are the specific reasons why single-payer health care does not and will not work:

Problem 1: It inevitably must ration care.A single-payer system is a “free-for-all system,” where costs are driven up. Patients over-consume health services because they don’t have to pay for them, and, thus, providers must oversupply those services. The only way a government can deal with overconsumption and oversupply is to ration those services through waiting lists.Canada’s health care system, for example, illustrates this very point: everyone in Canada’s public system must wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation. Moreover, in the long term, access to care will decrease more substantially because the prospect of lower compensation (see below) and lower lifetime earnings reduces the incentive for talented people to choose careers in health care.

Problem 2: It would not save money.When has our government ever saved money? Social Security is essentially bankrupt. Medicare will soon be bankrupt. So willMedicaid. These programs don’t save money and, instead, lose a lot of it because of the amount of fraud and, more importantly, the overuse they incentivize. Overuse is the real cause of rising health care costs.

After all, when something is free and you feel like you need it, would you ever stop asking for it? Moreover, as long as doctors are paid for providing you with that free service, why would they stop providing it? The same scenario would exist with a single-payer health care system. Overuse of services (again, because they are free) would limit any potential savings and eventually bankrupt the system.

Moreover, any analysis of costs savings by a government-run system is always misleading. Comparisons between private sector costs and the costs of a single-payer system usually exclude many government administrative expenses, such as the costs of collecting the taxes needed to fund the system and the salaries of politicians and their staff members who set health care policy. By contrast, the salary costs of executives and boards of directors who set insurance companies’ policies are included in private sector costs. A government is somewhat immune to the free-market bottom lines that private sector companies deal with annually. Government doesn’t have to account for every penny, and, thus, a lot is lost through the cracks.

Problem 3: Compensation for physicians and health care providers would decrease.A single-payer system would substantially lower payments to physicians and health care providers compared to our current system. For those of you who embrace class warfare and think this is a good idea, consider this: human beings are only so charitable. Many will draw a line somewhere. An individual spends almost an entire decade (and hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans) studying to become a doctor, and that doesn’t even include college. These people expect to be (and should be) compensated adequately for their effort and expertise. Whatever you think of what they should be paid, if they don’t feel they are paid enough, they will find something else to do. If doctors leave a profession that no longer pays well, the system will experience a reduction in the supply of active physicians.

That reduction, in turn, will impair access to health care and the quality of health care for everyone.

Problem 4: The quality of care would decrease.Lower compensation for doctors will limit their ability to invest in advanced medical equipment and new technology, as well as the time they need to stay up to date with medical developments. These limitations, too, will impact the quality of health care for everyone.

Now, who wants Uncle Sam telling you what insurance you should have or what treatment you should receive? These are private decisions made by an individual and, often, with the private advice of a physician. The government has no role or expertise in this area and should stay out.

Problem 6: It would hamper medical research.A single-payer system would also reduce the rate of medical progress. Recall (from above) that, because doctors will be compensated less, fewer talented people will pursue careers in medicine. Fewer people receiving medical training decreases the supply of talented medical researchers and, thus, impairs medical research and progress.

Problem 7: The countries that have had single-payer systems for decades are slowly moving towards more private systems.Canada, the United Kingdom, and even Sweden are slowly moving away from public systems of health care and allowing the private sector to take over. In each of these countries, particularly Canada, their single-payer systems have been disasters. Five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. Only half of emergency room patients are treated in a timely manner. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, where the winners gain access to a local doctor.

The most vivid indictment of Canada’s system might be the fact that Canada's provincial governments rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery. If Canada's single-payer system is preferable to our own, why would they send us their patients? (Hint: Because our system is better.)

These problems are likely only the beginning of what would happen to our health care if the Democrats have their way. I believe a majority of the country already understands the dangers of this health care bill. Details, however, are very important, and opponents of this bill must emphasize (to their Congressmen and fellow voters) the fatal drawbacks inherent in a single-payer system.

Okay, that's just idiotic on so many levels. Socialism is the elimination of private property through collective ownership. Individual decisions regarding the allocation of capital investment don't happen, since individuals have no capital. Capitalism is the system in which individuals choose to invest their capital as they see fit, producing goods and services. Socialist economic activities are coercive, since all economic actions are dictated by central planners. Capitalist economic activities are voluntary, since all transactions are individual decisions. The two are polar opposites.

So does the system we have now, and the one fifty years ago, and the one a hundred years ago. The one you use. The one I use.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

Problem 2: It would not save money.

It doesn't have to. All it needs to do is provide universal healthcare at the same per person expenditure that the present system does. That figure BTW, is considerably higher than lots of places whose standard of living is the same or better than our own.

Originally Posted by Odysseus

After all, when something is free and you feel like you need it, would you ever stop asking for it? Moreover, as long as doctors are paid for providing you with that free service, why would they stop providing it? The same scenario would exist with a single-payer health care system. Overuse of services (again, because they are free) would limit any potential savings and eventually bankrupt the system.

How many unnecessary procedures have you had because you get unlimited healthcare on the government dime?

Originally Posted by Odysseus

3: Compensation for physicians and health care providers would decrease.

Speculation. What isn't speculation is that ten years ago the negotiated charges allowed by United Healthcare were less than the Medicare reimbursement. Moreover, I never noticed the staff at Megabank having an unusual number of visits to the hospital or doctor simply because they all had fabulous medical coverage. Perhaps your scenario implies that only a certain kind of people will overuse the system. As I understand it, they already do which is why we have such a high per capita health expenditure. Maybe, if those people didn't go to the ER for a cold or because they can't afford $27 cold medication, that price would go down. Ya think?

Originally Posted by Odysseus

they will find something else to do. If doctors leave a profession that no longer pays well, the system will experience a reduction in the supply of active physicians

We are constantly told of the good old days when doctors saw patients for chickens. So which is it? Are they nobles in vocation who work for the glory of god and a comfortable living? Or are they opportunistic technicians who will.... well what exactly is it that you think these people will do rather than a sure bet of prestige and wealth? Sell real estate?

Seriously, doctor is about the last of the small businesses that Walmart hasn't cut the little guy out of. And I wouldn't imagine it will be too long before Walmart has full service clinics with doctors paid by the hour.